If you are in a controlled environment like a studio and have the lighting power to use Porta 160 would you see any difference using that instead Portra 400? I hear people love Portra 400, but I never hear much about 160.
I have very little experience with Portra since I shoot chromes.
I have shot a LOT of Portra 160 in a wide range of lighting conditions - mostly night photography. It's a terrific film and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it in medium format. I don't use the 400 much just because the 160 is so versatile, and when I need more light, I need a lot more light and I either throw that bad boy up on a tripod or I go to Portra 800, which is surprisingly low in grain for as fast a film as it is. Personally, I don't think you'll find the grain objectionable on any of the three emulsions (160, 400 or 800). And I have made 16x20 prints from negs shot with all three films, so I can say it does enlarge nicely.
I have shot a LOT of Portra 160 in a wide range of lighting conditions - mostly night photography. It's a terrific film and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it in medium format. I don't use the 400 much just because the 160 is so versatile, and when I need more light, I need a lot more light and I either throw that bad boy up on a tripod or I go to Portra 800, which is surprisingly low in grain for as fast a film as it is. Personally, I don't think you'll find the grain objectionable on any of the three emulsions (160, 400 or 800). And I have made 16x20 prints from negs shot with all three films, so I can say it does enlarge nicely.
The O.P wants to use the film in a controlled studio environment with strobes, extreme latitude is unnecessary because the light is measurable with a flash meter and under control, indeed 160 I.S.O. can be a problem in small rooms if you cant turn the strobe power down enough. I've used Portra 160 extensively for studio portraiture both in 135 and 120 and the fineness of grain, latitude, and natural skin tone rendition are perfect for the purpose, and I have no problem getting from my local pro lab. 20"X16" prints even from 35mm negatives.It's funny, because I hear that Portra 400 has a lot more latitude than the 160 counterpart. I've heard people shooting Portra 400 from 100/200-1600+ in a single roll without any processing changes.
The O.P wants to use the film in a controlled studio environment with strobes, extreme latitude is unnecessary because the light is measurable with a flash meter and under control. I've used Portra 160 extensively for studio portraiture both in 135 and 120 and the fineness of grain and latitude are perfect for the purpose, and I have no problem getting from my local pro lab. 20"X16" prints even from 35mm negatives.
I was always taught you should use the slowest film practicable to do the job and not many years ago I.S.O. 160 was considered a fast film, indeed Kodak High Speed Ektachrome was only 160 I.S.O. I do have a stock of Portra 400 in 135 and 120 in my freezer but I save it for marginal lighting conditions.
I'm very impressed Scott, this is amazing, and bears out my hypothesis that the greatest advances in film photography in the last 25 years have been in the films, more than the hardware.
Would you call this "worse"? I'd say that looks pretty darned good. Portra 800, Rolleiflex 2.8E, hand-held, roughly 1/15th @ f5.6.
I'm very impressed Scott, this is amazing, and bears out my hypothesis that the greatest advances in film photography in the last 25 years have been in the films, more than the hardware.
I agree Tom, and batter still than Kodak Vericolor that I used to shoot portraits with.Scott,
I've only used a bit of Portra 800 but the quality is remarkable as are the modern '160' and '400' films. Noticeably better grain-wise than the VC/NC line of films.
Tom
To date, I have stayed with E-6, but with visions of my cold, dead hands I am considering C-41.
What experience have others had with Portra 160 or 400 using tungsten light (3200 K)?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?